from the fighting-against-the-future dept

The Authors Guild has something of a reputation for being anti-innovation, anti-technology, anti-future and anti-consumer. It's also anti-small author. And it appears to be flexing its lobbying muscle this week to make all of this clear. It starts off with a move to ask for a dangerous idea in copyright reform, asking the House Judiciary Committee to implement a "notice and staydown" provision in any revamped copyright law. Just last year we warned people that "notice and staydown" was the way in which the legacy copyright industry extremists were looking to rebrand SOPA, and it has quickly become the preferred language of those looking to expand copyright and to attack innovation online.

The Authors Guild letter is ridiculous beyond belief. It starts off with the usual whining about poor, poor authors unable to make a living any more.

We are writing to ask you to make certain much-needed changes to the Copyright Act to help curtail
Internet book piracy. Writers' income is in steep decline. There are many reasons for this, but a decrease
in copyright protection and the aggregate effect of Internet piracy play an important role: the entire
publishing industry loses $80 to $100 million to piracy annually, according to a 2012 estimate by the
Association of American Publishers. Meanwhile, a recent Authors Guild survey shows that approximately
67% of our authors earn less than the poverty level from their writing, with median writing-related
income at $8,000, down 24% since 2009, when e-book sales started to take off.

Books provide an essential contribution to our society. Most authors don't expect to get rich from what
they do: they write to inform, educate, and entertain, and in doing so add to our common store of
knowledge and culture. But to keep writing, they must be able to support themselves and their families.
This has become increasingly difficult in the digital age.

Notice how, like the music and movie industry's before them, the Authors Guild immediately attacks online file sharing as if it must be the cause, ignoring all possible alternatives. In the book space this is particularly ridiculous, because the lowered barriers to entry from the internet means that many authors can now be published when that wasn't a possibility before. The number of ebook authors has exploded. Perhaps -- just perhaps -- rather than blaming "piracy" for the difficulty the elite club of the Authors Guild has, they might recognize the law of supply and demand, and recognize that the greater competition means that the monetary spend on the written word has been spread more widely. That's allowed lots of brand new authors to make a living from their writing, despite being passed over by the traditional publishers.

And, yes, many do not make a living, but that has always been the case. I know many people who have written books, and even those who have tried to "make a career" of it. And most don't. It's just not that easy to make a living as a book writer, and it's not because of piracy. As authors like Paulo Coehlo have found, file sharing can help authors build a larger audience and to make more money in the long run, if they learn how to embrace their fans, rather than actively push them away, like the Authors Guild often does.

Online book piracy, once the province of shady offshore websites, has migrated to mainstream American
distribution platforms. Our "Notice and Takedown" system is completely inadequate to combat this
problem. What we need instead is a "Notice and Stay-Down" regime: once a webhost knows a work is
being infringed, it should not receive continued "safe harbor" immunity from claims of infringement
unless it takes reasonable measures to remove all copies of the same work.

As we explained last year, this is one of those ideas that copyright holders love, because they don't understand copyright law in the slightest, or how any such system would inevitably work. The main problem is that copyright is context specific. Identical copies could be infringing or not infringing, depending on context. For example, remember when Viacom sued YouTube over video clips that Viacom itself had uploaded? A "notice-and-staydown" provision takes away the context and with it plenty of non-infringing works as well.

The Authors Guild also argues that it's somehow easy for companies to automate all this:

ISPs, on the other hand, do have the ability to monitor piracy. Technology that can identify and filter
pirated material is now commonplace. It only makes sense, then, that ISPs should bear the burden of
limiting piracy on their sites, especially when they are profiting from the piracy and have the technology
to conduct automated searches and takedowns. Placing the burden of identifying pirated content on the
individual author, who has no ability to have any real impact on piracy, as the current regime does, makes
no sense at all. It is technology that has enabled the pirate marketplace to flourish, and it is technology
alone that has the capacity to keep it in check.

This is just wrong on so many levels. First, if the Authors Guild is so worried about big companies, a policy like this makes them more entrenched. Even if we were to accept the Authors' Guild's faulty claim that these tools actually work (they don't), the argument that tech companies now have easy access to these tools is also not true. Big companies have access to these tools. But the next generation of startups do not. Thus, this policy would leave Amazon and Google in charge and block out any new company. Is that really what the Authors Guild wants?

Second, these systems don't work. We point out false takedowns on YouTube via ContentID all the time (and frankly we don't write about most of the ones that we see). Advocating a filter that will inevitably lead to greater censorship is a ridiculous position for the Authors Guild to be taking. And, by then putting legal liability on tech companies if they don't do this makes even worse, as it will only create more incentives for the tech companies to over censor to avoid any possible liability.

There's a reason why the burden does not belong on the intermediaries and it's pretty straightforward: the intermediaries don't know if it's infringing. That's something that only the copyright holders can legitimately determine. That's why the system requires notice from the copyright holders.

The purpose of copyright is to encourage the creation of new works--including and especially literary
works, which contribute so greatly to our nation's store of knowledge and culture. To continue to work
effectively, US copyright law must provide meaningful protection against the widespread online piracy
of books and journals, so that authors can afford to write them.

Actually, the purpose of copyright is to "promote the progress" of learning and education, and it's supposed to do that in two parts: one by creating incentives for new works, but also to then benefit the public by increasing distribution of those works. And, we're already living in a golden age with more books being written and published today than ever before. To argue that ebook piracy has somehow taken away the incentive to write... well, the evidence just suggests that's wrong. And, again, most authors never make much money at all. To complain that authors don't make enough is a different issue altogether and has little to do with copyright.

Of course, the Authors Guild didn't stop there. Also this week it went on the offense against Amazon, asking the Justice Department to investigate Amazon for antitrust violations -- even though the DOJ already looked into Amazon's practices and found them to be fine (instead finding Apple had violated antitrust law in colluding with publishers to raise ebook prices). But, don't mind the details, the Authors Guild is sure Amazon is to blame. According to the Authors Guild, the fact that consumers benefit from lower book prices shouldn't let Amazon off the hook.

Without commenting on the outcome of the Apple case, or the facts that led the majority to its conclusion, we'd like to point out the long-term dangers of interpreting antitrust law solely to favor low book prices over a thriving competitive and robust literary marketplace.

Yes, how dare you focus on the actual benefits to consumers, DOJ!

A related letter from "Authors United," again seems to attack Amazon for daring to offer good prices to consumers, as if that's some sort of horrible antitrust violation.

Personally, I think it would be great if there were more competition in the ebook space, though we have seen it start to expand, with Apple, Google and others entering the market. But, the reason those companies (despite their own market power) have had trouble making a real dent in the market is because people really like Amazon. Amazon does a pretty good job making it easy and convenient to buy ebooks, to read reviews, to find similar works, and -- of course -- to read the ebooks as well. It would be great if there was more competition -- and that it would lead to lower prices, better features and less DRM. I'd be all for it. But that's not what the Authors Guild is arguing for. They don't want an open marketplace. They don't want competition. They want higher prices and less competition from the riff raff authors who aren't signed to big publishers and aren't members of the Authors Guild.

It's not hard to see the consistent logic behind all of this. The Authors Guild doesn't like the internet at all. It used to have a good thing in the old days, pre-internet. It could keep out the riff raff, anoint authors as the chosen ones, and make money off of those few giant authors. These days it's much harder and there is a real marketplace. The Authors Guild can't compete, so it runs to the government to "fix" things. It attacks internet companies like Google and Amazon not because they're doing anything unfair, but because they're actually bringing real market economics to the market for books. And the Authors Guild can't allow that to to continue.

from the writing-is-9/10ths-of-the-law dept

Last May, a teenager was punished with a lengthy suspension after teachers discovered her folder which contained stories with references to marijuana use. Her father is now speaking out and appealing the school’s decision.

Tom Grayhorse, father of Krystal Grayhorse, told Ozarks First that he was called by Buffalo High School’s assistant principal after staff found Krystal’s folder containing the stories at the school and were “alarmed by the contents of the notebook.”

“She wrote about making out with a boy- well, you know, she’s a teenager- and also about having some pot then eating it and swallowing it at the school,” said Tom Grayhorse.

So, a student's personal notebook -- not one belonging to the school or any particular class -- was left behind and read by a member of school administration, who then "freaked out" and brought it to the attention of school officials.

He went to the school for a meeting but was told he couldn't see the notebook because it's considered evidence, and that his daughter would be suspended for ten days.

Yes, the school went full cop on him, claiming the evidence was so secret it couldn't even be seen by the legal guardian of the minor involved. The ten-day suspension has now been extended until January 2015, thanks to its "zero tolerance" drug policies, even though no actual drugs were involved. District Superintendent Robin Ritchie offered this deferral to policy by way of "explanation."

"If they give a ten-day suspension it comes to me as the superintendent and then it is my decision to look back at it and see if an extended suspension is in order...our drug and alcohol policies permit for several different consequences that can be given out. And most of the time it's 1 to 180 days that students can be suspended," Ritchie said.

Apparently, in this case, the decision was to use the full 180 days, stretching from the original suspension in May to early 2015. Obviously, this will have a negative impact on the student's hope of graduating on time, but the district has been less than helpful in ensuring the drugless drug violator will be able to stay on schedule.

"I asked them about alternate schooling for people that had been suspended and they said they didn't have it," says Grayhorse.

Then there's this detail, which may have some crying "#notallsuperintendents!" -- according to both the student's father and investigating officials, the student claimed to have had drugs in her possession, if only temporarily.

Grayhorse claims his daughter didn't have the drugs, even though she admitted to a school officer that she did.

"She'd confess to almost anything, within reason, just to get [the questioning] over with. Somehow she allegedly had some [marijuana]. And she ate it and swallowed it and that took care of it and it was gone."

Well, why not? And why didn't the school exercise some of the other options it offers students with drug issues, rather than pull the trigger on a lengthy suspension?

[Superintendent] Ritchie said the hypothetical discovery of a first-person story involving the use of a controlled substance, even at school, would "not necessarily" trigger a suspension. She added that school counselors have been trained to direct families to resources in the community if there's any hint of alcohol or drug use in a student.

The superintendent, while refusing to address specifics, says that the student's written "drug possession" wouldn't necessarily trigger a suspension and that the family could have been approached first about the theoretical drug problem. But the school didn't do any of this and Ritchie's noncommittal, non-specific statements back this up. She claims it all runs through her. So, the extended suspension, as well as the avoidance of less punitive actions, were OKed by her.

Devil's advocate says that if the student truly had drugs in her possession, this would all have been uncovered much more quickly and never would have become another quickly-circulating example of stupid school administration behavior. But withholding the evidence from the parent, as well as the lack of other verification like a drug test, points to a zero tolerance hammer converting another student into a more compliant nail.

from the swing-low,-sweet-chariot dept

For the sake of humor, I am generally a big fan of hyperbole. Miley Cyrus is cheaper than a half-off sale at the flea market. The Chicago Cubs are more futile than a company that builds igloos in Hell. See? When you're trying to be funny, hyperbole just works. However, when you're trying to make an actual point, comparing people who have agreed to write for free on the internet to slaves doesn't work, isn't funny, and deserves an argumentative kick in the rocks. We saw this previously in a ridiculous lawsuit by writers of The Huffington Post who somehow thought that their previous agreement to write for free entitled them to untold amounts of cash.

Yet, despite the stupidity of that lawsuit, we're back on the topic again thanks to a New York Times piece that somehow conflates asking for a free written work with slavery, not calling people after you have sex with them, and the nuclear bomb (and, no, I'm not kidding about any of those three). Here are some highlights from Tim Kreider's screed against the world.

People who would consider it a bizarre breach of conduct to expect anyone to give them a haircut or a can of soda at no cost will ask you, with a straight face and a clear conscience, whether you wouldn’t be willing to write an essay or draw an illustration for them for nothing. They often start by telling you how much they admire your work, although not enough, evidently, to pay one cent for it.

Aaaaand we're off, and on shaky ground, no less. I have received numerous cans of soda and even haircuts for free in my life, but I understand what he's saying. If something has value, thou must pay for it. Which would be all fine and good if the concept of writing on the internet were a one-way street, a la a soda can. If Mike Masnick comes up to me, says he's thirsty, and asks me to simply give him my soda can so that he might drink the sugary goodness of it, I am left without my soda can and have gained nothing in return, economically speaking. However, if Mike Masnick asks me to write for Techdirt for free (which he did), and I agree (which I did) with the idea being that I'd get some pleasure from it, build up some reputation that might lead to future paid work (which it did, for Techdirt, actually), and so that I can include that work when I send out query letters to literary agents in the future (which I did), then the transaction works both ways. We both attain something of value and the price tag on my writing is only one part of the equation. In other words, this analogy sucks.

But Kreider takes this on directly.

A familiar figure in one’s 20s is the club owner or event promoter who explains to your band that they won’t be paying you in money, man, because you’re getting paid in the far more valuable currency of exposure. This same figure reappears over the years, like the devil, in different guises — with shorter hair, a better suit — as the editor of a Web site or magazine, dismissing the issue of payment as an irrelevant quibble and impressing upon you how many hits they get per day, how many eyeballs, what great exposure it’ll offer.

Well, you know what, chief, not all of us are willing, capable, or privileged enough to write silly op-eds for the New York Times. Many of us actually do value that exposure that Satan is offering us, which is why we, you know, agree to do this stuff. It seems to me to be the height of arrogance for someone who has done well for himself attempting to unite a population against what they themselves had agreed to do, on the notion that he knows better for the masses. Now for some of the fun stuff:

-This is partly a side effect of our information economy, in which “paying for things” is a quaint, discredited old 20th-century custom, like calling people after having sex with them.

-Just as the atom bomb was the weapon that was supposed to render war obsolete, the Internet seems like capitalism’s ultimate feat of self-destructive genius, an economic doomsday device rendering it impossible for anyone to ever make a profit off anything again.

-Here, for public use, is my very own template for a response to people who offer to let me write something for them for nothing...

I have to admit, that last one is my favorite. The simple irony of completing an op-ed about how you should never give away your writing for free by then giving away something you wrote for free is the kind of thing I couldn't think up. At some point when the idea formed inside my head, the synapses would all shut down, angrily insisting that something so stupid should never be put into print.

That's why this former slave is thankful that he had the opportunity to write for free, which became writing for pay, all while avoiding writing an entire op-ed with a culminating line that negates the entire thing.

from the history-repeating-itself dept

It seems like we keep hearing people insist that the internet, and things like Twitter and Google, are making us dumber because we're no longer really delving into anything with any depth, but rather just finding and spreading short snippets of text. There's never been any real support for that concept, but leave it to good old xkcd to put it all in perspective with a bunch of historical quotes that show people saying basically the identical things more than a century ago.

TL;DR: People have pretty much always insisted that "back in the day, we spent much more time thinking/digesting/experiencing" and that "the kids these days just rush around." Maybe, just possibly, that's not actually true. Perhaps it's just that, as we all get older, time seems to move much faster, and the complaints are really people who are getting older (and, yes, this includes me) recognizing that we can't always keep up.

from the it's-not-really-'support'-when-you-demand-it dept

Another day, another article written on behalf of the disrupted, bemoaning the way things are, romanticizing the way things were and recoiling in horror from the touch of the "masses." This one's a particular treat, though, seeing as it's written by Ewan Morrison, the author whose ACTA "expertise" resulted in the "Most Clueless Column Ever." This article's headline is just as shocking: "There will be no more professional writers in the future." Morrison, sees the direness of his particular situation and has boldly taken it upon himself to speak for the entirety of professional writers, rather than just writers in his particular situation. This is never a good idea.

By his own account, Morrison is also being driven out of business by the ominously feudal economics of 21st-century literature, "pushed into the position where I have to join the digital masses," he says, the cash advances he once received from publishers slashed so deep he is virtually working for free.

Morrison fails to specify how many dollars separate "virtually" from "actually," but one is left to imagine that the number is distressingly low. If you're looking to sell books, there are many ways to sell books. If you're looking for one particular way to sell books and that's no longer breaking even, then the problem isn't the rest of the world. The problem is the method that no longer works.

And this phrase: "...where I have to join the digital masses." Heaven forfend! How awful. Just the sheer thought of having to mix with general population... [Pause briefly to prevent eyes from rolling completely out of their sockets.] Get over yourself.

Now, in articles bemoaning the current state of art, media, content, whatever, it's only a matter of time before the ebook-bashing starts. In this case, we only have to wait until the fourth paragraph.

And not only them: From the heights of the literary pantheon to the lowest trenches of hackery, where contributors to digital "content farms" are paid as little as 10 cents for every 1,000 times readers click on their submissions, writers of every stature are experiencing the same pressure. Authors are losing income as sales shift to heavily discounted, royalty-poor and easily pirated ebooks. Journalists are suffering pay cuts and job losses as advertising revenue withers. Floods of amateurs willing to work for nothing are chasing freelance writers out of the trade. And all are scrambling to salvage their livelihoods as the revolutionary doctrine of "free culture" obliterates old definitions of copyright.

Ebooks: "heavily discounted, royalty-poor and easily pirated." Weird. That doesn't sound like ebooks to me. The ebooks I'm familiar with have better royalty rates at lower price points and any "discounting" is done by the author, usually to increase sales (and royalties) rather than as some sort fiscally self-destructive "cry for help".

"Easily pirated?" Name another form of digital media that isn't. If you know you're going to be competing with free, it kind of makes sense to not charge trade paperback prices for something that fits on a micro-SD card with room to spare.

The economic trajectory of writing today is "a classic race to the bottom," according to Morrison, who has become a leading voice of the growing counter-revolution – writers fighting fiercely to preserve the traditional ways. "It looks like a lot of fun for the consumer. You get all this stuff for very, very cheap," he says. But the result will be the destruction of vital institutions that have supported "the highest achievements in culture in the past 60 years."

Well, let me know how that fight turns out, Morrison. "Preserving traditional ways" certainly sounds like just the sort of technobabble needed to turn a generation raised on free social media, free cloud services, free news, free-to-play online games and free music into paying customers. If I were a betting man, I'd be putting my money on the "destruction of vital institutions." Of course, this "destruction" seems a lot less harrowing when you get a more objective definition of the word "vital."

Many will cheer, Morrison admits, including the more than one million new authors who have outflanked traditional gatekeepers by “publishing” their work in Amazon’s online Kindle store. “All these people I’m sure are very happy to hear they’re demolishing the publishing business by creating a multiplicity of cheap choices for the reader,” Morrison says. “I beg to differ.”

Of course you beg to differ, Morrison. This is competition. This is no longer a one-way funnel from publishers to book stores with gatekeepers on either end. This is a tsunami of change, covering how media is consumed, distributed and created. I wouldn't expect you to be thrilled, but I'd at least expect you to realize that you can't drag the past into the future. It's impossible. You can make angry statements and point fingers and fiercely guard what's left of your chosen field, or you can direct some of that energy towards moving forward and making the most of the new tools and services available.

But Morrison's not interested in that. In a companion piece for the Guardian, Morrison paints an even bleaker picture. Citing the explosive growth of ebooks and the long tail phenomenon, he reaches the conclusion that the death of the professional author is a foregone conclusion. All that's left is to wait for the body to cool. Between piracy and ultra-low prices, there's no hope for the creative world (writers, musicians, filmmakers, photographers, etc.). He gives it about a "generation" before being an artist of any type will be unsustainable.

But... he has a solution (or rather, the "only" solution):

The only solution ultimately is a political one. As we grow increasingly disillusioned with quick-fix consumerism, we may want to consider an option which exists in many non-digital industries: quite simply, demanding that writers get paid a living wage for their work. Do we respect the art and craft of writing enough to make such demands? If we do not, we will have returned to the garret, only this time, the writer will not be alone in his or her cold little room, and will be writing to and for a computer screen, trying to get hits on their site that will draw the attention of the new culture lords – the service providers and the advertisers.

Really? This is a "solution?"

He offers no further details, leaving this "political" solution open to interpretation. Does Morrison mean that artists should be supported by some sort of monthly stipend? Just fill out a form listing your occupation as "writer" or whatever and mail it in to the Department of Social Services or other relevant governing body and wait for your "artfare" check to show up once a month?

Or is he suggesting some sort of bailout for publishing houses, record labels and any other part of the creative industry that's currently struggling? If so, good luck. Here in America, at least, most of the general public was against bailing out domestic manufacturers of automobiles, a physical product that's much more useful than a song, a book or a photograph. It's not impossible to get this sort of thing done if you're connected to the right politicians, but it's not going to make a large portion of your potential audience very happy.

A bailout situation also lends itself to recurring transfusions of public money because, in most cases, it's just a stay of execution. The public didn't care whether or not GM had the opportunity to crank out another vehicle because they had plenty of other options. Don't delude yourself into thinking the same doesn't apply here. All those "millions" willing to do your job on the cheap will plug any holes you leave behind, Ewan.

It's one thing to thing to try and push anti-piracy legislation through and hope that this will somehow increase sales. It's quite another to require the public to make up the difference via taxation. We already have enough discussions about using tax dollars (via the NEA) to fund art that some find offensive. Imagine doing this on a massive scale like the one Morrison suggests. Discussions would go far beyond shoving crufixes into jars of urine and cover just about every iteration in the creative industry.

If you think that public money will flow uncontested, then you obviously don't know a thing about politicians. The minute the wind starts blowing unfavorably, you'll all be stuck writing safe, boring beach novels or risk having your funding yanked.

Whatever Morrison's actual plan is, it's still going to boil down to the same thing: artifically propping up the remnants of an industry at the public's expense. This may get applause when preaching to the converted, but the people you really need on your side -- the consumers? All they'll see is someone yelling about how the world owes them a living.

from the who's-about-creativity? dept

A few weeks ago, we pointed out the totally laughable push by Universal Music to get people to alert their elected officials to the reasons why they might support PROTECT IP. What was really ridiculous about it was that the form was completely uneditable. There was no option to change the wording or add anything. Anyone who used the form sent the identical message to their elected officials (pretty much making sure that those letters get ignored). On the flip side, however, we have the EFF's form, which makes it easy for you to tell your elected officials why you disapprove of PROTECT IP and would like them to vote against it. Unlike Universal Music's form, the EFF form appears to be totally and completely editable. There is a short suggested text, but the EFF (again, totally unlike Universal Music) asks you to adjust and personalize your message based on your own thoughts and opinions.

I find this contrast to be quite telling. On the one side, we have an industry that claims to promote creativity and uniqueness -- and which abhors the idea of copying anyone else (at least in its statements). On the flipside, we have the EFF, often derided as a bunch of "piracy apologists," who just want to copy everything and have no concern for creativity. Kinda shows how wrong those views are when you look at how they treat this effort at public participation, doesn't it? Of course, the other thing that it shows is that Universal Music doesn't trust people to actually say what it wants. The EFF, however, has plenty of trust that people will use the form intelligently.

from the enjoy dept

As mentioned recently, today I'm interviewing Paulo Coelho at BookExpo America concerning both his new book, Aleph, as well as his many interesting experiments with the internet, including things like very actively "pirating" his own works using BitTorrent -- and seeing his sales shoot up because of it. Anyway, it looks like there's going to be a live stream of the event, which is scheduled for "around" 2pm ET today (though I've been warned it may actually start slightly later than that):

from the have-any-questions? dept

I've written a bunch of times about Paulo Coelho and how he's completely embraced social media, new business models and the economics of digital and infinite goods to increase his already considerable level of success. So, I'm thrilled to announce that I'll have the pleasure of interviewing Paulo at BookExpo America in NYC on May 25th at 2pm, where we'll be discussing his various experiments, how he's using social media, and how others can take advantage of social media and use "free" to their advantage, rather than fear it. We'll also even have some time to discuss his latest work (honestly, what good is interviewing someone like Paulo Coelho if we don't also talk about some of his writing!). In the meantime, though, I'm interested in any suggestions folks have for questions for Coelho in this particular forum.

from the world-has-changed dept

We've written a few times before about Paulo Coelho and his views on copyright, unauthorized use of his works and the importance of sharing. Coelho, of course, is one of the best selling authors ever, but set up his own "pirating" operation called "Pirate Coelho" to get his works more widely read... and found that his sales increased massively because of it. He's also spoken out about how the world is changing and authors will be punished for not sharing their works more freely.

TorrentFreak alerts us to the news that he's posted yet another blog post on the subject about how he "loves pirates" and how people underestimate that artists can and do get paid, even when their work is being shared in an unauthorized fashion. In fact, he's selling more books now that he's actively offering up more "pirated" copies of his own work than ever before:

How did all these social communities start?
At first it was just wanting to chat with another person. But chatting isnít enough Ė we have to share the music, the book or the film that we love. When there was no law against it, this information was exchanged freely. Finally, when the entertainment industry caught on, the repression began.

Art is not an orange.
If you buy an orange and eat it, you have to buy another one, and then it makes sense that oranges should not be given for free, because the consumer consumes the product. Art is about beauty. Music is about beauty. If I visit a page and I like the music, I am sure I will buy the CD, because I want to know more about the work of the artist.

Always nice to see successful content creators speaking out on important subjects like this. A nice contrast to those who are so narrowly focused on making sure that no one else benefits from their work.

from the sad dept

Copycense recently pointed me to a really depressing post by the author David Glass, discussing his views on copyright. I found it depressing because it opened with such hope and recognition about how important remixing and sharing are to culture and creativity, and how little any of that has to do with copyright:

For centuries, people have enjoyed a shared pool of story, riffing with the same old themes, playing with each others' work. After that and after my Walkman childhood came the Internet, and fun new worlds of mash-ups and sharing, open source and Creative Commons.

I love it all. Creativity should come from a spirit of communication, maybe cooperation, not the egotistic holding to oneself that copyright suggests. I like musicians to sample each other, and authors to reference each other, and film-makers to pastiche each other. I'm all for intertextuality and a sense of fun and play. I'm pretty much a copyleft sort of guy.

With such a great opening, why is the article depressing? Because it's followed by the inevitable "but..." And that "but" is that he wants to make money from his writing and the "old industry" relies on copyright, and if he wants to make money he has to play ball with their ways of thinking.

People ask to see what Iíve written and I have little to show them online. I want to be published and broadcast and paid for my work and I fear that sticking things on the net puts that at risk. For example, if I sell a short story to a magazine they will want first rights, and if Iíve put that story on the web already, there is a grey area as to whether that counts as prior publication. I play it safe and put very little of my writing up, in the hope that through conversation I can keep people interested in me anyway, in the hope that a time will come when I can send people off to read a book of mine, or hear my play on the radio.

In other words, copyright isn't promoting progress at all here. Instead, it's really doing the opposite, causing this author to hide his works and hope that some old gatekeeper decides to publish it.

This is a much more mild version of an argument we've seen elsewhere. Copyright defenders, for example, like to assume that when folks like myself talk about doing things without copyright, we mean either doing things for no money or through some sort of "charitable" set up. That's simply not true, of course. We talk about all sorts of business models that let people make more money than they could have otherwise -- and we're certainly seeing that happen in the world of writing. We're hearing more and more success stories in the world of self-publishing of ebooks or using platforms like Kickstarter or testing other business models selling additional scarcities.

There are lots of business models that seem to work quite well for people who can and do connect with their fans -- and one of the best ways to connect is to get the actual writing out there and get people hungry for more and more and more. Those who are doing the math (and are fanatical about connecting with fans) are starting to argue that there's a lot more money to be made in going with some new business models -- even for those who can make a lot of money the traditional way.

Compare that to going the old gatekeeper route: you have to deal with a lot of making no money while you deal with rejections. If you get a book deal you may get an advance, but then you're unlikely to ever see much more than that, unless the book is fabulously successful. That's not to say that there aren't still roles for those gatekeepers, but relying on them solely and feeling the need to hide your works away -- especially when you recognize the overall benefit to creativity from sharing and openness -- just seems like a really depressing statement on copyright.